81–90 of 215 posts
Always remember: your fingerprint is identification. You can be forced to identify yourself to law enforcement. Do not make it your password. Your password is something you know, not something you are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a problem for me. Charge and prosecute them or let them go. Indefinite detention without a fair and speedy trial is unquestionably unconstitutional.
Well imagine a criminal is holding a piece of your property or even a person and not revealing where that is. Do you think it's reasonable to hold them for 30 days and then let them go and say "ah well I guess you can return that/them if you want cuz you did your time." A charge of contempt is still a charge.
And holding a person is already a separate charge - kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contempt is a terrifying charge, because under current law, you can be jailed indefinitely for the same contempt charge for as long as you refuse to cooperate with whatever the court thinks you should cooperate with. There's no upper bound there. So that wouldn't solve the problem.
Contempt is a weird power in general, especially when it's used for reasons like "disrespecting the judge." If I am disrespectful to the governor of my state, or if I'm disrespectful to a police officer, or if I'm disrespectful to a fireman or a bailiff or a legislator or a district attorney or a teacher or the President, that is a thing that I can legally do. But for some reason it's not outrageous for a judge to se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contempt is a terrifying charge, because under current law, you can be jailed indefinitely for the same contempt charge for as long as you refuse to cooperate with whatever the court thinks you should cooperate with. There's no upper bound there. So that wouldn't solve the problem.
Contempt in this case would be impossible after a couple days, when the iPhone will refuse to accept the fingerprint and instead require the passphrase. She is no longer capable of fulfilling the court's demand (use your fingerprint to unlock the phone) at that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contempt in this case would be impossible after a couple days, when the iPhone will refuse to accept the fingerprint and instead require the passphrase. She is no longer capable of fulfilling the court's demand (use your fingerprint to unlock the phone) at that point.
not if they charged it? wouldnt it last forever?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contempt is a terrifying charge, because under current law, you can be jailed indefinitely for the same contempt charge for as long as you refuse to cooperate with whatever the court thinks you should cooperate with. There's no upper bound there. So that wouldn't solve the problem.
Contempt is a weird power in general, especially when it's used for reasons like "disrespecting the judge." If I am disrespectful to the governor of my state, or if I'm disrespectful to a police officer, or if I'm disrespectful to a fireman or a bailiff or a legislator or a district attorney or a teacher or the President, that is a thing that I can legally do. But for some reason it's not outrageous for a judge to se…
The "contempt of court" charge basically serves as a court-private time-out box to send people to whenever they can't handle being in court, until they learn to stop, erm, "blocking the cooperative event queue from pumping messages."
It's not that the charge has to be indefinite—but it has to be capable of sticking as long as the trial's progress is halted. The charge should definitely cease to apply if the trial manages to resume through some other route—and especially if it manages to conclude.
Remember, "contempt of court" isn't about malfeasance, either. Experts who lie on the stand are not in contempt. Lawyers who introduce non-cross-examined evidence are not in contempt. Random audience members getting up and saying things during court are not in contempt. It's only when one of these things causes the trial mechanism to grind to a halt, and then the person refuses to yield to let the trial resume, that they are in contempt. It's a process-control mechanism, and in that respect, it's quite necessary.
(That's not to say it can't be abused—especially in smaller courts in non-jury trials. But it has a well-defined good usage, and can't really be redefined without losing that usage.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contempt is a terrifying charge, because under current law, you can be jailed indefinitely for the same contempt charge for as long as you refuse to cooperate with whatever the court thinks you should cooperate with. There's no upper bound there. So that wouldn't solve the problem.
Contempt is a weird power in general, especially when it's used for reasons like "disrespecting the judge." If I am disrespectful to the governor of my state, or if I'm disrespectful to a police officer, or if I'm disrespectful to a fireman or a bailiff or a legislator or a district attorney or a teacher or the President, that is a thing that I can legally do. But for some reason it's not outrageous for a judge to se…
Could it be argued that the knowledge of which finger (or part of your finger) you use for authentication is equivalent to a passcode?
Could it be argued that the knowledge of which finger (or part of your finger) you use for authentication is equivalent to a passcode?